CHHOTTU RAM Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 10.05.2011, Annexure P2 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa vide which the application filed by respondent-plaintiff for police help, was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a suit for permanent injunction restraining present petitioner-defendant from interfering in the possession of respondent-plaintiff as tenant over the land in dispute was filed. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. The application was allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated 16.02.2011. Appeal filed by present petitioner-defendant against the said order was disposed of vide order dated 17.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa in view the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that he would not make any interference in the possession of respondent-plaintiff over the property in dispute in his individual capacity. However, even before passing of order by learned appellate Court on 17.03.2011, an application was filed by respondent-plaintiff for providing police help to implement the interim injunction order dated 16.02.201 J passed by learned trial court on the plea that even after passing of said order, present petitioner-defendant is threatening to interfere in his possession. The application was decided after passing of order dated 17.03.2011 by learned appellate Court vide impugned order dated 10.05.2011, Annexure P2 vide which learned trial Court has directed the concerned SHO of the police station that whenever the respondent-plaintiff approaches him, he will render the police assistance for upholding the order of the court dated 16.02.2011.

(3.) It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that though petitioner-defendant is bound by the statement given by him before learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa on the basis of which order dated 17.03.2011 was passed and though he has not tried to interfere in the possession of respondent-plaintiff and however, in the garb of impugned order dated 10.05.2011 passed by learned trial Court, police is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner-defendant. He has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Polavarapu Nagamani and others v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao and others,2011 2 CCC 333, wherein it has been observed that for providing police help proof of threat of breach, disobedience or violation of order of interim injunction has to be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. He has also contended that even in the judgment passed in Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and another, 2007 1 RCR(Civ) 597 upon which reliance has also been placed by learned trial Court while passing the impugned order, it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. However, it is contended that in this case nothing has been shown to the court that petitioner-defendant has violated the interim injunction order passed by the trial Court or that petitioner-defendant has tried to violate the said order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that only vague plea has been taken in the application filed on behalf of respondent-plaintiff that petitioner-defendant alongwith 5/6 persons had entered the premises in dispute and tried to dispossess him from the same and however, they could not succeed in their design.